Onward, in a different direction.

I am realizing of late that I am spread to thin, over too many social media sites and blogs, and much less effective with my voice than I could be.

I'm going to reflect on that, and remedy it, likely with a new more focused blog  elsewhere on Blogger.

Since you are here, stay a while and prowl through my archives of 300+ plus posts on my very first, and in some ways favorite blog.

Start at the beginning and read my earlies entries back in 2003 when I was full of energy.

Find my July 4, 2008 post where I called Sarah Palin as Vice President way before McCain picked her.

Leave a comment or two. I'll still see them.

Onward, in a different direction.

A Definitive and Unique Guide to the "Birther" Challenge

Ah, the "Birther" issue. The Obama conspiracy issue that will not, and perhaps cannot, go away.

I've studied it at length, and it took me a while to puzzle it all out. But I have. And, if you'll grab an Hawaiin Ice and buckle in, I can guide you to a unique insight as to why you're wrong about what you think that you know about Birther lore. It takes a while to to unravel this story, but it's worth it. Along the way you'll find UNIQUE POINTS with insight you will only find here.

The Birther challenge is my candidate for the singularly most mis-reported story of the Obama campaign / presidency. It's frustrating to me for two reasons. Because the media continues to boilerplate the same incorrect information into every story on the topic. And, because the Birther critics - who pillory and disdain the Birthers as know-nothings - do not themselves understand correctly the case that the Birthers are making. Pitiful and frustrating.

It's not like the basic facts of the Birther's challenge to candidate Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States have changed much since he announced his candidacy more than 3 years ago. Not the core facts. So...

Why has the Birther issue stayed alive?

• Because it smacks of a good conspiracy theory, even though it turns out that it isn't.

• Because it's important. Eligibility to run for President of the United States is a fundamental issue that affects us all every four years. There are only 2 simple requirements to run for this office: 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen". Challenging a candidate's eligibility on these requirements is not only valid, it is responsible. Ask John McCain, who was challenged on this requirement the first time that he ran for President because he was born out of the country to military parents serving overseas.

• Because President Obama, by his own admission, has an exotic life history for an American president. It includes, for the first time since the Revolutionary War founding days, a father who was a British citizen of another country (Kenya). It includes half of his family living in Kenya, with some telling stories of having seen Barack born in Mombassa.

• Because the press has consistently misreported this issue, and thus inadvertently kept it alive.

• Because the Birthers have yet to provide authentic positive proof that President Obama was NOT born in the USA.

• Because the President has yet to provide CONCLUSIVE positive proof that he WAS born inside the USA, and in fact seems to be hiding records behind seal. After Obama's brief visit to Hawaii to see his dying Grandmother one month before the election in 2008, the Governor of Hawaii sealed Obama's birth records. Why?

Having said that, am I a Birther?

Well, no and yes.

No: because I believe that the Birther challenge is both fruitless and moot. Fruitless, because although it is most likely that the President was born in Hawaii I don't believe that we will get to see conclusive proof of that. Moot because the President is already two years in office, having been elected by a compelling majority of voters and the electoral college. He won. He's governing. This issue needed to have been correctly vetted before the election - which is a lesson for future elections.

Yes: because I believe that challenging a candidate on eligibility is a valid and required pursuit, and that the Birthers have raised a valid challenge that has not yet been conclusively disproven.

A simple detective story:

I approach the Birther challenge as a straightforward non-partisan detective story. I assume that parties on both sides have good motives, whether it is defending or challenging Barack Obama's eligibility per the Constitutional requirement. Let's start from a position of good will.

A BOLD statement up front:

From my study of the Birther challenge, I'll make these two simplified, unique, and bold statements now:

1. There are two relevant stories of the President's birthplace, one which allows eligibility and one that does not.

2. UNIQUE POINT: All of the evidence presented to date SUPPORTS BOTH STORIES EQUALLY!, and without conspiracy or intentional fraud.

There, I said it. Now, let's walk through it as a detective story.

The two competing stories of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth:

The two relevant stories of Barack Obama's birthplace go like this:

1: Barack Obama is born in the USA, in a hospital in Hawaii, and is a US citizen eligible to be President.

2: Barack Obama is born in Kenya, in a hospital in Mombassa and is not a US Citizen because of laws regulating citizenship that were in effect in 1961 - given that his father is a British citizen. The most likely way this happened was that the Obama's took a trip to Kenya to visit Barack Sr's family and was prevented from returning home in time to deliver by airline rules that prevented mothers from flying in the ninth month of pregnancy.

So, what evidence differentiates between these two competing stories?

Primary evidence - Birth Certificates, which we all understand:

We all were born. We all understand birth certificates from personal experience. We should know that there are two types:

Long Form BC, with the footprints. One vault copy for the Bureau of vital statistics to retain. One copy sent home with mom and dad. (Obama references this copy in his book "Dreams from my Father". He lists some items on top of a dresser, one of which is his birth certificate.) In 1961, a Hawaiian long-form "Certificae of Live Birth" issued by a doctor in a hospital looks like this, with the doctor's name and the hospital:

Short-form. If you can't find your original birth certificate, as I personally can't, you can order one from the state bureau of vital statistics. At some point the birth records were computerized, and you will be getting a computer printout called a "Certification of Live Birth", which DOES NOT list the name of the doctor and the hospital. It's legal for identification. I've used this form myself. In Hawaii for a birth in 1961, it looks like this:



Problem 1: 1961 law

It's complicated, and best explained in this report, but the law in Hawaii in 1961 allowed four ways to get a long-form birth certificate. The simplest was being born in a hospital and having a doctor fill it out. But, not everyone was born in a hospital. So, the law allowed for walk-in reporting of a birth up until 1 year old by family members.

Suppose, in story number two - the Kenyan birth, Obama's birth was reported by walk-in at the Vital Statistics bureau. Suppose Grandma "Toot" Dunham (the responsible one) took daughter Anne (the chaotic one) down when she got back home and reported the birth. "We live in Hawaii, and there's been a birth!" The two long-form certificates would be created. One vault copy and one to go home. The difference would be that they would list no doctor's name and no hospital name. That difference is crucial.

Problem 2: Adoption changes things:

You may not have known this. As an adoptive father of two, I do.

UNIQUE POINT: After an adoption, the original vault copy is replaced with the adoption version, with different information on it. A new long-form BC is issued to the adoptive parents. If the child later requests a copy of his BC, he would not be looking at the original information it contained.

Barack Obama was adopted when he was 6 years old and his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro. Was his original vault copy BC replaced with a modified one? Possible.

But wait, say the fact checkers, hasn't Barack Obama provided a Birth Certificate?

Yes and No. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama presented the short form "Certification of Live Birth" pictured above. The various fact check sites (Snopes, FactCheck, PolitiFact) display it prominently and have judged that this settles the matter.

But it does not. Because President Obama has not presented the long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" - either the vault copy or the family copy.

UNIQUE POINT: The short-form "Certification of Live Birth" does not differentiate between the two birth stories. BOTH STORIES ARRIVE AT THE SAME SHORT FORM BC.

Without the name of the doctor and of the hospital on the document, you can't differentiate between the two stories.

Take a minute and examine the short form BC that Obama presented. Tell me the name of the doctor. Tell me the name of the hospital. Answer: you can't tell me that from the short form. They are not on that document.

Are they on the vault copy that the computer record was generated from? We don't know without seeing it.

UNIQUE POINT: The two stories CONVERGE from a birth certificate perspective:


Let's recap the two birth stories, using what we now understand about the BC's.

Story 1: Obama born in the USA

1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are physically in Hawaii when the baby is born.
2. Baby is born in USA hospital, in Hawaii. (One of two. Both have been claimed over time by Obama. Neither will currently officially claim the birth)
3. Doctor fills out long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" under way one of 1961 Hawaii law, including his name and the name of the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.

Story 2. Obama born in Kenya

1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are in Kenya to visit his family and are prevented from traveling back to the USA before the birth.
2. Baby is born in a Mombassa hospital, with questionable or nonexistant record keeping.
3. Obama family reports the birth to the Burea of Vital Statistics by walk-in, which is allowed under 1961 law. Bureau fills out long form certificates, WITHOUT the name of the doctor or the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.

UNIQUE POINT: The stories CONVERGE at step 4! After that, you cannot differentiate between the stories with the short form. Only with the long form by determining whether or not the doctor's name and hospital are listed.

But wait, say the fact checkers, isn't there secondary evidence in the form of newspaper announcements?

Ah, the trump card that the fact-checker sites believe they are playing, but are not. This is the most misunderstood and misreported piece of evidence in the Birther story.

 Researchers have found a birth announcement in two Hawaii newspapers from 1961 that look like this:

Based on the contemporary birth announcements posted in two Hawaiian newspapers, the fact checkers aske these two compelling questions:

1. Don't they prove that Obama was born in Hawaii as he states?

2. Wouldn't there have had to been a large scale, impossible, and laughable conspiracy to go back to the papers and plant these announcements for the Kenyan story to be true?

Trump card! Case closed!

Well, no and no.

1. UNIQUE POINT: The birth announcements DO NOT prove that a live birth occurred physically in Hawaii. They only prove that a birth certificate was filed at the Bureau of Vital Statistics - WHICH IS TRUE IN BOTH STORIES. The newspaper announcements do not list the name of the doctor or the hospital, and so do not differentiate between stories.

If you go back to both stories where they converge at point 4 (Vault copy filed at BVS) and insert a 4a in each story it would be: BVS notifies newspapers of the filing of a birth certificate, and newspapers routinely print announcement.

2. UNIQUE POINT: No conspiracy to go back and plant the newspaper accounts is necessary in the Kenyan birth story. It is the natural occurence after a BC was filed at BVS, IN BOTH STORIES!

No conspiracy. No conspiracy theory. Only a small case of innocent fraud if the Obama family walked-in and reported a birth, as allowed by 1961 law, when the birth had taken place outside the USA. But, who could blame them. Wouldn't you want a US birth certificate after you had inconveniently been out of the country during the birth? They did live in Hawaii. They would want a US BC. And they might have gotten one.

Summary: What will prove or disprove the Birther case?

It is as simple as the Birthers have stated. As Joe Farah of WND has stated with his sign campaign pictured at the beginning of this article: Show the original form birth certificate.

The only way to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories - in the absence of Barack Obama presenting the family copy of the long-form certificate that he offhandedly mentioned in his book - is to see the vault copy of the "Certificate of Live" birth on file in the birth records office in Hawaii.

If there is no vault copy, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it does not list a doctor's name and a hospital, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it has been altered during the adoption, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it does list a doctor's name and a hospital, then the case is resolved.

So, the natural question is, why haven't we seen the vault copy of the birth certificate? As Chris Matthews asked this week, why hasn't President Obama done everything that he can to make that copy available for inspection to put this to bed?

I'll end this guided tour with three relevant news stories:

1. During the 2008 election campaign, officials of the records office in Hawaii gave a statement that they had seen, and could verify, that there were birth records for Barack Obama in their office.

UNIQUE POINT: While this was seen as conclusive by many, it is not. What is on the birth record? What does it say? Is there a doctor's name and hospital, or not????

2. A story in June of 2010 featured Tim Adams, identified as a "Senior Elections Clerk for Honolulu" who was leaving his job in Hawaii. On his way out, he gave an interview where he said that it was common knowledge in his office that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. This is not substantiated.

3. The new Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has stated his irritation with the Birther challenge, and his determination to release more birth records to resolve this issue. To that I say: good luck with that. The previous Governor had them sealed. You will likely need the permission of Barack Obama himself to unseal them. I have not yet seen an indication that he will do that.

I hope that Governor Abercrombie can do what he desires to do and can get the vault copy of Barack Obama II's "Certificate of Live Birth". We all need to see it to be able to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories and put this issue to rest factually.

The Bottom Line for Me:

We're not likely to be able to conclusively resolve the Birther challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be President.

I don't think that President Obama can produce a conclusive family copy of the long form "Certificate of Live Birth". If he could, he would have by now. Maybe he lost the copy that he mentioned in his book. It happens. I've lost mine. Maybe the certificate was altered during his adoption. My boys' were. Maybe he doesn't even know the exact circumstances of his birth. Again, my boys do not.

And, maybe he cannot get the original vault copy released because of Hawaii or national law. I don't know - I've never had to try with mine.

Maybe the short form, insufficient as it is, is all he has and all he knows. It's entirely possible.

I don't fault President Obama for any of that. It's a complicated story, mostly out of his control.

So, I'm left with the conclusion that we are never going to conclusively know that answer to this important challenge that the Birthers have validly raised. And so we're stuck with a mystery. A simple but unsolvable detective story. Stuck with endless but fruitless lawsuits until President Obama leaves office.

That's my bottom line.

On Opposing Reform

This week, in the course of pandering to and appeasing his White House guest - Mexico's President Calderon - President Obama sequentially undermined Arizona's new immigration law and then expressed sympathy for it. It's a misdirected expression of frustration, he said, at America's broken immigration system. He shares that frustration, he assures us, because he wants "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", but the Republicans are blocking him.

Ah. We're opposing "reform". Heard it before. I've heard it on liberal blogs and on Twitter alternately that either Republicans or the Tea Party or both are blocking "reform".

Guilty. Not all reform. But, I resolutely oppose reform of the Democrat variety.

Mostly, what I've learned about "reform" over the last year is this:

1. Democrat leaders (Obama / Pelosi / Reid) - in the year of Hope and Change - will attach the word "reform" to any major legislation they propose.

2. Democrat rank-and-file will immediately and unquestioningly support the "reform". Whether they have read the actual bills (and they have not). Whether they know if it is actually positive reform or not (and it's not).

3. Democrat leaders and rank-and-file will relentlessly accuse anyone opposing the specific bills offered in legislation of being "opposed to reform".

Well, yes. I have opposed the Democrat version of "reform" several times in the last 17 months.

Yes, I opposed Obama / Pelosi / Reid Health Care "Reform". All of the various versions, and the various 2700 page mish-mashes of corruption and big-government creeping socialism. We were lied to by the leadership of the House & Senate at every stage of the debate about the scope, costs, and corruption in the bills. We are still learning that the only true thing that Nancy Pelosi said during the debates was "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it". Now we're finding out what's in it, including ever-expanding costs predicts that are still not close to real cost of the bill.

That doesn’t mean that I think that America’s health care system doesn’t need reform.

Certainly not the Democrat version that will eventually go a long way toward bankrupting our nation.

Yes, I oppose the financial “reform” bill drafted in the Senate by Chris Dodd.

Does the financial industry bear some responsibility for the economic crash and deserve further regulation to prevent it from happening again? Of course.

But, why would you trust Democrats in Congress, who arguably had more to do with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, to write financial reforms? Why especially would you trust Chris Dodd – Senator from Country Wide Mortgage, who was knee-deep in the subprime mess – to write a “reform” bill. It’s insane.

And yes, I oppose “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR), as envisioned by the Democrat leadership.

We’ve been down the amnesty road before, and it did not solve the problem. Amnesty is ultimately where CIR is headed again, despite the fiction that Congress can craft a credible “pathway to citizenship” without secure borders.

Let’s be clear, Congress. You do not get CIR until you demonstrate convincingly that you can secure the border. That is already their job, and they have been negligent in that role for the decades – leading to the problems that we have now. Secure the border first!

In fact, we can fashion other versions of “Comprehensive” immigration “reform” than the version that the Democrats are selling. Here’s a plan that can be labeled as “reform”:

1. Secure the border! Build a double fence as far as needed on our 2000 mile southern border. Build at least the 700 miles that was promised in the 2006 bill that was signed into law. Until you can live up to the already-signed law, you can’t have new laws.

2. Enforce current federal law on immigration. Deportations. Workplace enforcement. Etc.

3. Pause legal immigration until unemployment – currently at a 17% real rate – is back under 6% (Proposed by Pat Buchanan in an op-ed)

4. End birthright citizenship. Go back to requiring that one parent be a citizen and of age. (proposed by George Will in an op-ed)

That is an immigration "reform" plan.

Would you vote for that? Why not. Do you “oppose reform” or something?

on Kagan's Disqualification for SCOTUS

I have opined on Twitter that, in my opinion, President Obama's nominee for the SCOTUS vacancy - Elena Kagan - is disqualified for the position by virtue of the reports of her banning military recruiters from campus when she served as Dean of the Harvard Law School. My opinion is my own, and is not formed from Newt Gingrich's similar pronouncements yesterday, or from any partisan website.

A reasonable question came from my friend Omer Mozaffar on Twitter, who asked:

"Even if the facts were that simple, which you know they aren't, how does that disqualify her?"

Good question.

Our task in evaluating Kagan for the SCOTUS vacancy is the task of evaluating her judgement. That is what she will be called to do - make judgements. Given that she has never been a judge and does not have a body of judicial decisions for us to evaluate, we have to look at how she has made judgements and decisions in her professional life to date as predictors of how she will make judgements on the court. In this particular, in her decisions on allowing or not allowing military recruiters equal access to her campus, her decision was so significantly shocking as to be disqualifying.

It is, as Omer suggests, not a simple question. And there are defenders of Kagan on this issue. One clear and seemingly mitigating defense was offered by her predecessor as Dean of the Harvard Law School - Robert C. Clark - in the Wall St Journal article here. You should read the article. I have, twice.

Clark offers three essential defenses of Kagan's actions:

1. She inherited the policies on access for military recruiters to Harvard's Office of Career Services (OCS) from Clark himself.

2. Kagan was acting in the interest of the campus non-discrimination policy when prohibiting recruiters from using OCS. The military couldn't sign a no-discrimination policy because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", so Harvard treated them as discriminators.

3. The practical effect was not severe because the recruiters came on campus at the invitation of student groups.

Before I discuss why those three arguments are flawed, a review of the timeline set out in Clark's article is useful.

1979 - Harvard adopts the non-discrimination requirement for recruiters on campus using OCS

1994 - President Clinton and Congress sign "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Military cannot sign non-discrimination policy. Harvard at some point denies them access to OCS.

1996 - Congress passes Solomon Act, prohibiting colleges that accept federal aid from banning recruiters

Harvard is now in violation of the Solomon Act

2002 - Air Force makes the case that Harvard is deny it's recruiters "equal access" to their students.

Harvard, facing the loss of 15% of revenue, decides that it's principles on non-discrimination are fungible and grants an exemption to their policy for military recruiters - along with annual statements to their students that Harvard opposes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Access to the OCS is restored.

2003 - Elena Kagan becomes Dean of the Harvard Law School and keeps this policy.

2004 - an Appeals Court rules the Solomon Act invalid.

Ms. Kagan makes a decion at this point to return the Law School to the previous policy, and again prohibits access to military recruiters to the OCS.

One semester later, the Supreme Court overturns the Appeals Court. Plus, the Government threatens again to cut off federal funding to Harvard.

Their funding threatened, once again Ms. Kagan relents and allows access to the OCS and resumes writing her bad boy advisories to students about the military's discriminatory policies.

That is the timeline and the facts, as laid out by Ms. Kagan's defender Mr. Clark.

Now, back to the three defenses and why they are faulty.

1. She inherited the Policy:

Not good enough. She will not get to make that stance as a Justice on the Supreme Court. She will have to make her own decisions. In fact, she did make her own decision in 2004 with her decision to revert to the previous policy and again ban recruiters from equal access to the OCS.

2. Her positions were based on the Universities non-discrimination policies:

Her decision, when she had the chair of Dean, was to ban recruiters from equal access to the OCS based on politically correct OPTIONAL policies on discrimination. I say optional because when faced with a choice of losing 15% of their funding Harvard's scruples on discrimination came 2nd place. Money came first. When Dean Kagan thought she had the cover of the Appeals Court ruling to shield her from the loss of funding, she chose to end the exemption. She didn't have to.

Dean Kagan had the option of continuing the exemption for military recruiters to use the OCS. In the context of 2004, she should have. America was (and is) at war in two theaters. Military lawyers were in the thick of critical decisions on detaining and trying detainees related to those wars. Does our need for our Department of Defense to have equal access to the best and brightest law school graduates in war time trump an optional policy on non-discrimination? Especially when the military was just following the policies established by President Clinton and Congress. You bet it does.

Yet, in her one moment of owning the decision, Ms. Kagan decided on a policy of denying equal access to our military's recruiters. Shameful.

3. The practical effect of this ban, this denial of equal access, was negligible.

Nonsense. The military did not feel that it was negligible. That's why they pushed hard for restoration of equal access in recruiting Harvard's law students. Goldmann-Sachs had full access, but the U.S. Military did not.

Nor did the Supreme Court, when it reversed the Appeals Court on the Solomon Act.

Elena Kagan had her moment of making a decision. A judgement. It came in 2004, when she made the decision to revert to a policy of denying equal access to the OCS to military recruiters.

Kagan's decision was opposite in intent to the Supreme Court's intention in restoring the Solomon Act. Yet, Obama now wants to put her on that same court. It's a mistake.

We have little record to judge Elena Kagan's judgement. Here is one example, and she got it badly wrong - as did her defender Mr. Clark. She got it so wrong in wartime as for it to be a disqualifying decision, IMHO.

Vote no on Elena Kagan's confirmation.

(Photo by Randy Masters copyright 2007)

on Racial Sensitivity at our Borders & the AZ laws

It's heating up!

The issue of the 5 kids who wore American flat t-shirts to a California public schools on Cinco de Mayo is more than a one day news story. It has become emblematic of the general tensions on the border - played out in the tensions in the public schools.

The battle is engaged on Twitter and in the blogosphere, with Roger Ebert leading the team critical of the kids wearing the American Flag shirts. Click here for Roger's blog post, and engage...civily please.

I'll leave my comments on the topic over there.

You can find my Twitter posts at www.twitter.com/rmasters78

THE ONE Continues Slander of Fellow Citizens

"Obama Kills at White House Dinner" was the headline I saw this morning. Making jokes at the expense of his fellow citizens in Arizona:

"We know what happens in Arizona when you don't have an ID...Adios Amigos."

Funny. A knee-slapper. Yucking it up - not like he had to be at an oil spill or anything.

Nice, to have the President of the United States undermining federal immigration law - which the Arizona law mimics for laughs.

Meanwhile:

- immigration "rights" forces march in lockstep with communists on May 1st: May Day / Che Day. Both having the same agenda of undermining American law.

- our border remains negligently unsecure under the Obama administration, as with his predecessors, allowing an illegal invasion to continue to endanger American citizens.

- the American political Left yawns at Arizona's crisis and agonizes only about racial profiling.

- racial groups like La Raza and MeCHa push for "chicano studies" programs in schools in the West that promote Reconquista and Aztlan - the future chicano state reclaimed in America's West after the collapse of Washington. And we tolerate that?

There will be a backlash against the Left's backlash on the AZ law. It's on.

American Left Outraged over Wrong Things

The American political left is outraged - outraged I tell you! - regarding the newly signed Arizona immigration law. But, as usual, they are outraged over the wrong things.

The good people of Arizona, in a reasonable attempt to protect themselves against an ongoing criminal invasion of their state that sees 650,000 (probably more) people trespassing there and border chaos and violence that endangers every one of them, acted where a negligent federal government has not.

Does the American political left have empathy for the very REAL crisis that their fellow citizens find themselves in? No. Not at all. Instead, they vilify them - with unwarranted charges of "racist!" and "Nazi" and agonize only on the POTENTIAL for racial profiling. A potential, I should add, mitigated by the good-faith efforts of the Arizona legislators to craft wording in their law that prohibits racial profiling.

I have three questions for my friends on the political left - many of whom I hung out with at EbertFest 2010 last week:

1. Are you paying attention to, reading about, the crisis in Arizona? I'm talking about the border violence that has spilled over to Arizona and made it essentially a war zone that endangers them, and simultaneously crushes them with the cost?

If so, why aren't you outraged at the murders, kidnappings, drug crime, and identity theft that plagues Arizona?

2. Have you no empathy for your fellow citizens and their crisis? If not, may I respectfully say that your empathy is misplaced with the lawless.

3. What is your solution to Arizona's crisis? Open Borders? Amnesty for those who have illegally crossed our borders? Ignoring our immigration laws? Vilification of good people and fellow citizens? What is your solution?

Apparently, watching today's May Day rallies, the American Left's solution is to join forces with the Communist Party and the Reconquista movement on May Day / Che Day to continue to destabilize American sovereignty and democracy. See Michelle Malkin's coverage of today's rallies here. Does anyone on the American political left see a problem with this?

The accusations of racism and Nazi are outrageous, over the top, and must stop.

I stand with the good people of Arizona in confronting their existential crisis.

Perpetually Outraged Left Overheats on AZ Law

Folks. Friends. Let's keep a level head here.

There is no more rapidly overheating issue, in an already overheated political season, than that of the recently passed Arizona state law addressing law enforcement responsibilities regarding immigration status. A law which codifies at the state level what already exists at the federal level.

Arizona's new law is a reasonable response to an emergency. The border is in chaos, with drug wars and crime bleeding across and endangering American citizens. The government, whose core function is the protection of these citizens, is acting - in the negligent absence of action by the Federal Government. And they are being vilified for it.

My EbertFest / Twitter friends are peppering me with questions on my position standing with the good people of Arizona. The political left is generally in misreading the law and in hurling charges of racism. It's unbecoming.

Let's address the plain facts of the law with a cool head.

Let's start here: Pat Buchanan got it right in his column this week on "Whose Country is It Anyway", when he observed that "No other developed country has a 2000 mile border with a developing country." True. Not Canada. Not Mexico. Not anywhere in Europe. Nowhere else in the West, at least, is that true. And that is the heart of the matter. The developed country (USA) is a magnet for the developing country (Mexico), and an invasion of illegal aliens at least 12 million strong is the result. (Although I think that number is soft).

I used three words in that last paragraph that many will object to: invasion, illegal, and alien. But words have meanings. And, those words have plain meanings that have been greatly distorted by the Open Borders crowd on the left, with resulting damage to this debate and to our country.
Let's discuss the definitions of those words, in the context of some quick facts:

1. A country is defined in large part by it's geographical borders. Look at any globe.

2. Countries maintain their sovereignty, in large part, by controlling those borders. Every country does it. A country that does it poorly, that negligently allows the borders to become uncontrolled and porous, is in danger of losing it's rightful sovereignty.

3. Sovereign countries, to thrive and grow, should welcome immigrants. But that welcome is not without limits, and must be controlled in a fashion to allow assimilation to work. Negligent uncontrolled immigration leads to balkanization and ethnic factionalism - which is detrimental long term to the health of a unified nation.

4. The United States Congress, in recognition of the above, has passed a body of Immigration Law over time in an effort to both welcome immigrants and to control their numbers and distributions to enrich our country and still allow for assimilation.

Now, back to the definitions:

1. Invasion: accurately describes a wholesale combination of a negligent control of our borders and a flood of people passing through them in violation of the law. Are there 12 million people illegally in Canada? In Mexico? Anywhere in Europe? No. It is an invasion.

2. Alien: a perfectly good word often used in US immigration law. It means only "not from here".

3. Illegal: a straightforward word. U.S. immigration law establishes the procedures that allow aliens to be in our country legally. If you are here in violation of those laws - regardless of where from or of what race - you are here illegally. If you came across the border without permission, or overstayed a Visa, etc. you are here illegally. How many other countries allow that on a massive scale?

The political left in this country has degraded the clear meaning of those words, and for partisan political agenda reasons, using euphemisms like "undocumented worker", for example. It's dishonest and not helpful to the dialogue.

Back to the AZ law. It's only 16 pages, and easily readable. Yet, no one on the political left who is hurling the charges of "racism" has probably read it. They are clearly mischaracterizing it rampantly. Stating, for example, that people can be stopped and "asked for their papers" simply for how they look. It's untrue, prohibited in the plain language of the law, and outrageous. That charge was fueled by President Obama, who said:

"Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed — that’s something that could potentially happen… That’s not the right way to go."

That pandering statement made by our President at a campaign rally is a blatant lie. You have to already be stopped for a legal violation to be asked for ID. But facts don't matter to our demagogic President. Does it bother you that our President lied about this topic.

By the way, I've been asked to show ID. I've carried a passport in every foreign country that I've visited and been asked to present it many times. I've been stopped here for traffic violations and asked to present my ID and proof of insurance. What exactly is the problem here?

Okay, to answer the Twitter questions:

1. etherielmusings When you think a complete stranger is less worthy than you, put your best friend in his/her shoes, and think again. Think before you judge.

Grace, I don't think of strangers as less worthy than me. I think of them as held to the same standards as me. Follow the law. To think less than that, to allow people to wantonly break the law because of liberal sensibilities, is to degrade them. The least judgmental thing to do is to apply the same standard, the same law, to everyone.

2. popcornreel AZ law fans please note: this is Native Americans' land. Most of us are immigrants. AZ law doesn't target all immigrants, ergo: it's racist.

Omar: true, historically. We are all immigrants. However, your statement negates the entire body of American immigration law. Congress passed immigration laws, which clearly define legal and illegal immigration. To abide by the law is not racist. If anything is racist, it is to advocate not holding someone accountable to the law merely because of their race or origin. We are all accountable to the law. If you don't like the current immigration law, then vote to change it.

In the meanttime, are we to ignore that immigration law exists. To pretend that Arizona is not in crisis?

3. etherielmusings @rmasters78 who determines who is a "criminal" alien or not? What if I walk down ur street & get stopped cuz I look like an "alien"?That ok?

Grace, the Congress of the United States has decided who is a criminal alien and who is a legal alien. Just as your country has done for Canada. Why did you go through Customs on the way back into Canada. Why didn't you just cross the border to go back home anywhere you felt like crossing?

Congress has defined it, and law enforcement officers execute the law. Just like on every other law.

4. ebertchicago @rmasters78 You say it's odd liberals object to "criminal aliens showing ID." Guilty until proven innocent: That's America?

Roger: Have you never been asked to show a passport in a foreign country? Have you never presented your driver's license when stopped for a traffic ticket? The AZ law says that if a law enforcement officer in the course of a legal contact for other issues has reason to suspect that the person may not be here legally they can ask for evidence of that and refer to ICE. That is in support of federal immigration law, which the Federal Government has been negligent in enforcing.

I was listening to talk radio - left and right - on a long drive yesterday. I heard an AZ lawman call in. He said that often on a traffic stop the person will say "I don't have a driver's license, but here is my Mexican birth certificate" or counsular card. The lawman now has reason to refer the case to ICE. What is wrong with that?

5. ebertchicago What if whites in Arizona were pulled over on suspicion of being racist? Not all are? Not all brown people are illegals.

Roger, 70% of Arizonans support the new law. Do you think that total only includes white people? Hispanics and African-Americans are negatively impacted by illegal immigration and the chaos on the border too.

6. @ebertchicago: Idea for Arizona: Just have them wear a cloth star, easily visible on their topmost outer garment.

Roger, my friend. Please reconsider this tweet. It makes me sad. Comparing the holocaust to the AZ law? I'm invoking Godwin's Law, and you owe Ben Stein an apology now.

Folks. Arizona's border with Mexico is in crisis. Kidnapping and crime off the charts. State resources overburdened. Ranchers being shot. Years and years of broken promises by the Federal Government in administrations of both parties to fix the border. It's a crisis. I think that Arizona acted reasonably to protect it's citizens of all races and colors from an invasion.

Please, stop with the "Nazi" and "racism" charges. It is, frankly, unhinged and unwarranted.

More to Say

Wow. I see that I haven't posted here in almost a year...

It's not that I haven't had anything political to say in that time. I've said plenty! I've just said it elsewhere, becoming addicted to posting on Roger Ebert's Journal. Commenting on a range of political, scientific, and religion issues with an international cast of characters. Holding my own, as the often lone conservative on a predominantly liberal blog - and facing the fire with civility modelled for me by the master himself, Roger Ebert. It's been a pleasure getting to know him and spar with him.

I'm just back from a wonderful experience at EbertFest 2010, where I immersed myself in an eclectic mix of 10 films of Roger's choosing. Politics free. Just film.

But, I find that I have more to say in this tumultuous political climate that we find ourselves in.

So, I'm spinning up Partisan Newsjunkie again.

I've written this blog for seven years now. 351 total posts! Nothing that I am ashamed of. Strong and often partisan opinion, sure. Raw emotional politics, sure. But civil.

I'm sticking with my byline "Partisan", though I've added my real name to my profile.

I'm back.

And I have more to say.

Confirm Sotomayor

Elections have consequences.

One of the very serious consequences is that the President - possibly one that you never agree with ideologically - gets to select Supreme Court nominees. If you want SCOTUS justices that vote the way you would like them too, then get your candidate elected President. It's as simple as that.

Obama won. He has selected Judge Sonia Sotamayor for the first vacancy.

I'm a conservative. That means that I believe that the Senate should only reject nominees if they are unqualified. Not on partisan political / policy differences.

That's not how Democrats fight in the Senate. They take on nominees tooth and claw over policy differences - and make it personal. The Senate Democrats questioning Sam Alito disgraced themselves and disgraced the Senate in their personal attacks on him. They even made his wife cry in the gallery. Disgraceful.

I've only opposed one SCOTUS nominee in recent years - Harriet Myers, who was nominated by my guy President George Bush. This was a mistake. She was only minimally qualified for the position. When you have the whole country full of brilliant minds to choose from, then a Friend-of-Bush selection was unwise and untenable. She had to go. Republicans opposed her, and she was withdrawn.

That brings us back to Judge Sotamayor. Is she unqualified?

No and Yes.

She is clearly judicially qualified. She had more experience on the bench than many recent nominees.

Is she tempermentally qualified? Well, she has called that into question with her remarks that are racial in nature about the "wise latina woman" being superior to white men. And with here decisions on the bench like the Ricci case.

Is it enough to disqualify her? No.

She is going to be a dependable liberal vote on the court. I would prefer that not happen.

But, elections have consequences. Obama gets his pick, in this case.

The Senate needs to challenge her enough to make their point that she needs to be fair in her judgements - and then confirm her.

The Leftist / Media Double Standard on Tiller

The media's leftist double-standard in the coverage of Dr. Tiller's murder and in the non-coverage of the Marine recruiter's murder is blatant, but not surprising.

Dr. George Tiller was murdered by a single shooter as he attended church Sunday in Kansas. Dr. Tiller is the most notorious abortionist in the country. He performs late-term abortions for cash, some 60,000 viable babies terminated in the womb at the hands of the "doctor". He was, in short, a monster. The label "Tiller the baby killer" was accurate. Which, however, does not justify his murder.

If you've followed the pro-life movement for the last twenty years, and I have, you know two things. First, the mainstream pro-life movement seeks to end abortion through legal and peaceful means, not by assassination of abortionists. Second, the movement has been engaged in decades long attempts at stopping Doctor Tiller through the courts and grand juries, not through shooting.

That one deranged person took it into his own hands to end the life, and practice, of the doctor is a tradgedy and is not the fault of the pro-life movement.

That was not, however, the position that the mainstream media took in reporting the story. They took the leftist position and named as accomplices in the crime everyone who has ever criticized abortion in this country. Everyone who called Tiller a murderer, or his practice an abortion mill, helped pull the trigger in their tale.

But several abortion-rights activists questioned the sincerity of anti-abortion leaders who have been condemning Tiller's murder while denying that their movement fosters extremism.

"It rings a little hollow to me," said Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, which helped women pay for abortions at Tiller's clinic. "Anyone in the anti-abortion movement who has called abortion providers murders or called abortion a holocaust — any of those kind of vilifying statements — helps create the conditions where something like this can happen."

MSNBC hosts all featured stories linking Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and the pro-life movement in general to the murder. Keith Olberman even called for a "quarantine" of Fox News for it's complicity in the crime. Way over the top!

And they got an assist from the Obama administration. President Obama issued a statement decrying the "heinous" murder. Attorney General Holder dispatched U.S. Marshalls to guard abortion clinics around the country.

Here's where the double-standard comes in...

The day after the murder of Dr. Tiller, a young Marine in a recruiting center in Arkansas was gunned down by a lone shooter. A Muslim convert who had travelled to Yemen to study Jihad and was angry at the U.S. military for it's crimes against Muslims. A deranged shooter, in the same vein as Tiller's killer.

Did the leftist MSM go into high dudgeon to connect the leftist activist groups that have been harrassing military recruiting offices in the U.S. for the last few years? Code Pink, for example, which has a permanent protest site in Berkely California from which they launch daily assaults calling the U.S. military murderers and predators? Or the leftist city leaders there who granted Code Pink the parking spot from which to conduct their harrassment of the recruiters?

Note: I happened to be in Berkeley for business a few months ago, where I took the picture on this post. I was personally harangued by the bully with the megaphone just for standing on the sidewalk looking at them. I was a white male, so surely I was an oppressor. I engaged in a half-hour of civil dialogue with them - enough to witness deranged agitators in the flesh.

Did the MSM cover the Marine's murder? Barely.

Did MSNBC get their lather up to denounce the leftist activists who have called the recruiters murderers at full volume as accomplices in the shooter's crimes? Not hardly.

Did the President issue a statement decrying the murder of one of the troops he commands? No.

Did Attorney General Holder dispatch guards to Marine Recruiting Stations? No.

It's a glaring double standard. The left that controls the media sees accomplices everywhere in Dr. Tiller's murder, but none in the Marine's murder by an actual Muslim terrorist.

That's instructive.

For the record, the only people responsible for the two murders are the shooters. MSNBC's rants about O'Reilly notwithstanding.

The Dealers Fight Back

I was looking for a fight as I was flipping around on the channels tonight. I was thinking UFC, and I was headed for Spike TV. But I found a fight on C-Span that was better.

The Congress critters had a table full of witnesses discussing the disolution of dealerships by GM and Chrysler as they go through bailouts and bankruptcy. The CEOs who had announced the closure of dealerships were at the table side-by-side with some of those self-same dealers.

And the dealers were kicking their keisters, in polite C-Span speak.

The CEO's were arguing that they were closing down dealerships because they were a cost burden. The dealers were counter-arguing that the they don't cost the big-three anything. They sell their cars.

The Congress critters were bi-partisanly not buying what the CEO's were selling. And the glum faces of the CEO's showed it.

How did we get to this point so quickly in Obama's term, that the federal government has majority ownership - along with the UAW - in one of the big three automakers?

Hugh Hewitt makes this excellent point in his post today: how can the Federal Government be an impartial player in dealings with all of the automakers in the country when it is a direct owner of one of the competitors? How, indeed.

Also, how much traction is the reporting that all of the closed dealers were Republican donors going to get in the leftist media?

We've turned a corner here, people.

With Sebelius Nomination - It's On!

Unlike most of the mainstream media, I am not swooning about President Obama's choices for his cabinet. Several seem to me to be remarkably poor choices.

Some examples:

- Timothy Geithner: a Treasury Secretary who is a tax cheat

- Hillary Clinton: a Secretary of State who is indebted to many of the world leaders that she will try to influence, via cash deposits in the Clinton Library Foundation

- Leon Panetta: a Director of the CIA who has no intelligence experience

- Eric Holder: an Attorney General who showed disregard for the law with his participation in Clinton's Marc Rich pardon for cash.

All bad choices, who should have been rejected by the Senate.

But now we have the topper: this weekend's nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilieus for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I know, most of you are not familiar with her. Pro-lifers certainly are.

Gov. Sebilieus is not just Pro-abortion, but militantly so. More than any other governor in the U.S. You want proof? Not only is she outspoken about it, but her actions say it. Kansas is the state that harbors the most notorious late term abortion doctor - Dr. Tiller - and the Governor has the murderous doctor's back. She's blocked efforts to have a grand jury indict the doctor, and in return has benefitted greatly from donations to her campaign. Blood money.

Her nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services is particularly eggregious, and it cements Obama's status as the most pro-abortion president we have ever had.

It's on! Her nomination will be vigorously opposed.

America Mugged by Pelosi and Company

There is anger in the land. Oh, yes.

And right now it is directed at the $1 Billion "Porkulus" bill, masquerading as a stimulus bill. Pelosi crafted it. President Obama owns it. And the majority of Americans are angry about it.

Make no mistake, Americans know when they are being lied to and are being taken advantage of - and we don't like it.

It's like the old story of having your car break down on the highway in a distant city and having the garage owner that tows you in bill you for one of everything on his shelf. Because he can. Because you're vunerable.

Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats are like the unscrupulous garage owner. The country is in crisis. We need a stimulus bill - no one says otherwise. We need job creation, and we need it immediately. But Pelosi & company didn't just craft a stimulus bill. Oh no. They took the opportunity to mug America and craft a Trillion Dollar Monstrosity full of every spending idea Democrats have ever had in the last 20 years.

Just to say it straight out - it's not stimulus, and to say it is constitutes a visciously deceptive lie. If you want to spend money on condoms, or the arts, or to pay back your donors for electing you do it in an appropriations bill the regular way. You have the votes to pass it. But don't call it a stimulus bill and stick a gun in our ribs and tell us that it has to pass in a week or the country will self-immolate. It's a lie. It's the big lie, told by unscruplous and irresponsible political goons.

I take it back. The best analogy for Pelosi and company is not the garage who charges you too much.

It's more like the motorist who is stranded by the highway, and the supposed Samaritan who stops to help rapes the motorist and leaves her for dead.

Obama to KSM: I've Got Your Back, baby!

As expected, Barack Obama began his presidency last week with a flurry of Executive Orders, most to reverse Bush policies. Two notable ones:

1. E.O.'s to ratchet back the government's aggressive policies against terrorism since 9/11. An order to close the detainee detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prohibiting aggressive interrogation techniques by the CIA, requiring the use of the Army Field manual.

2. Reversing the "Mexico City Policy", also called the gag-rule, that prohibits U.S. foreign aid going to family planning activities that counsel for abortion. Those funds are now available worldwide.

Let me translate those two Executive Orders for you:

1. Obama to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the 250 most dangerous detainees in the world: I've got your back! Hang in there, we're coming to your rescue!

2. Obama to unborn babies worldwide: You, not so much. We're putting out a hit on you.

Sick.

What foolishness liberals perpetuate in the name of Progressiveness.

You haven't thought this through, lefties.

Given that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not only the operational planner and mastermind of 9/11 and many other attacks, and that the CIA broke him and stopped further attacks using waterboarding: How else would you have gotten that information and stopped those attacks against Americans? Or, are you willing to sacrifice other Americans to soothe your conscience?

Given that at least 60 other detainees who were released by the Bush administration from Gitmo under pressure have returned to battle against American troops, are you willing to release these 250 most dangerous detainees? On American soil? Where are you going to put them now?

These are foolish and deadly policies.

And we're only one week in. Egads.

Ethical Cognitive Dissonance

So, I'm sitting in the cafeteria at work having lunch. The TV overhead is tuned to Headline News and, inevitably, Barack Obama.

Our new President is, on his first day in office, signing Executive Orders to frame out his rules of the road for his Executive Branch. First up: ethics reform. He's bringing change to ethics and transparency, he's saying, so that America can trust it's government again.

Wait a minute, I'm thinking. Isn't this the President whose nominee for Treasury Secretary (whose agency includes the IRS) is testifying in Congress and apologizing for being a tax cheat? Does Mr. Secretary's example mean that I can ditch my tax bill and not pay any penalties until and unless I get nominated for a cabinet appointment? Why not?

Wait a minute, I'm thinking. Isn't this the same President whose nominee for Secretary of State, in charge of our embassies and diplomatic policy worldwide and confirmed today in the Senate, has a conflict of interest the size of the her new fiefdom - having benefitted from the tens of millions of dollars her spouse has accepted from foreign governments for the Clinton Library Foundation. Isn't she a board member. Don't they have a joint checking account? Is she going to pressure a government who gave her family an easy $10 million?

Wait a minute, I'm thinking. Isn't this the same President whose nominee for Attorney General of the United States is apologizing for his role in lobbying President Clinton for a pardon for criminal fugitive Marc Rich based on cash donations from Rich's wife to the same Clinton Library Foundation?

Does his new ethics Executive Order include anything about not nominating a rogues' gallery of ethically challenged elitists to his own cabinet?

And I'm supposed to trust in government now?

I almost barfed up my sloppy joes.

Consider Me Depressed

Have you ever known a teenager, or been one, who not only believed that all of the adults who came before him were irrelevant and stupid and who not only believed that they knew everything but that they invented everything? That they were the first person in the world to ever have experiences?

That's the general feeling that I came away from yesterday's inauguration with. President Obama is one of those teenagers trapped in a 47 year old body.

I tried to get into the spirit of the day yesterday. Really, I tried.

There were plenty of high points: the amazing crowds, the parade of former presidents, the peaceful transfer of power that makes is our strength in the world, the pomp and ceremony, the Obama family revelling in their moment.

There were some low points: the classless Obama supporters heckling President George W. Bush with "na-na-na-na, hey hey, Goodbye" when he took the podium, when Bush has been extremely gracious during the transition. Rev. Lowery's needless racism in the benediction - longing for the day when "white will embrace what is right". Please.

And then there was the speech. Obama's speech. Dreadful. Downbeat. A cliched teenager with a microphone.

I could pick it apart line by line, but here's four quick examples:

1. "And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders"

Hey, junior, let's be clear: America is the most generous nation in the world in giving to those in need both within our borders and outside. Don't besmirch us to make yourself look good. Whether it's disaster aid, foreign aid, or coming to the defense of the defenseless America is there. Just look at Africa, where the Bush administration has pumped untold millions in Aids relief in the last 4 years. Africans love Bush. Apparently Obama has not heard that yet. But, he will invent foreign aid.

2. "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world,..."

Really? We've never been "responsible" before? Quick, remind me: which party was it that was pushing high-risk mortgages in the name of "affordability for all, even those who reasonably couldn't afford them? Which party? Which is the party of irresponsibility? Please.

3. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect"

Really? Here's news, junior. Large parts of the muslim world would like to behead you and your family. Where's the "mutual respect" in that? Welcome back to the 9/10 world of denial.

4. "We will restore science to its rightful place..."

Let me translate that for you:

The Global Warming religionists are here to take over your lives, despite the irony of the words "bitter cold" being in most of our forecasts for the last month. And, hey by the way, we're not killing embryos fast enough.

That last one was where I turned off the speech. I did read the text in full later, which I would venture most of the rest of you did not. You should.

Yes, I wish the new President good health and safety during his term in office. Yes, I wish the nation will succeed under his leadership.

But, no I do hope that he gets through his agenda that he campaigned on enacted. It will be devastating for our country.

I'm bracing for the flurry of executive orders sure to come this week, and legislation shortly after:

- handcuffing our homeland security and intelligence agencies by forfeiting the tools that they need to go aggressively after the people who still want to destroy our country and kill us
- massive pork and taxation
- unrestricted abortion on demand from the most pro-abortion president we've ever had. Look for him to sign FOCA immediately.
- unionization of America through the "check-card" system, dismantling secret ballot elections that have thwarted intimidation tactics by the unions. Here come the thugs.

Lastly, let me say this: if President Obama yeilds to those loud voices on his left who want to criminalize policy issues and arrest Bush, Cheney, Rove, and adminstration officials who fought the War on Terror aggressively and kept us safe for the last seven years he will be making a huge mistake. If he does that, he will be unleashing mass civil unrest. Don't do it!

Consider me un-hopeful for Obama's first term - yesterday's pomp and ceremony notwithstanding.

Barack will need Jack Bauer

In the last few minutes before President Obama takes the oath of office as the 44th president, let me just say:

Thank you, President George W. Bush, for keeping our country and my family safe for the last seven years. No one expected, after the horror of 9-11, that we would not be attacked again on U.S. soil during your presidency. No one. And it was not an accident. You were, by necessity, the president of 9/12 - as none of your critics had to be. You did what you had to do to put us on offense and keep us safe. Thank you.

I think, I know, I fear that our new president will soon discover - if he hasn't already in his security briefings - that you were right to be as aggressive as you were in protecting us.

All you have to do is read the story reported yesterday on the Drudgereport - "Deadliest weapon reported so far, the Plague" - to know that we have Jihadist enemies worldwide sworn to bring the maximum death and destruction to our shores and that it will take an aggressive and sometimes distasteful fight to keep us safe.


40 Al Qaeda terrorists found dead from the bubonic plague. How did they get it? Clearly they are brewing up bio weapons to attack us with. Perhaps they were the weapon. What if you infected 40 people with plague and put them on planes to Dearbornistan Michigan or other high-muslim-population areas? We would have a problem on our hands that would dwarf 9/11.

So, tell me my lefty friends. Suppose you capture a jihadist terrorist - who is not a uniformed member of a recognized army - and you suspect that a plague attack is imminent or in progress. Are you going to refuse to do whatever it takes to get the information you need to protect America? Including waterboarding?

This is not a foolish hypothetical in our world today. It's very real. It's what George Bush has lived with every day since 9/12. And he acted on the intelligence to keep us safe.

I'm hopeful that Barack Obama will stay on offense and keep us safe, and not yield to the foolish pacifism of the left that he is beholden to and that will leave us vunerable again. That he will be a 9/12 president and not a 9/10 one. But, I am not optimistic.

Democrats Behaving Badly

Which Democrat is behaving most egregiously in the last two months:

-Rod Blagojevich – Illinois Governor. Caught by U.S. Attorney in a pay-for-play bid to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by PEBO. (President Elect Barack Obama).

-U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Announced that Obama is not implicated in the Blago scandal – even though he’s been taking testimony for years from Tony Rezko, who was the corrupt fundraiser behind both Blago and Obama. There’s a grand jury in Obama’s future.

-Barack Obama. To ease concerns about possible connections between corrupt Gov. Blagojevich, Obama investigated himself and pronounced himself clean.

- Mainstream Media (mostly Democrats), who meekly accepted Obama’s self-clearing report.
Roland Burris. Accepted the appointment from scandal-tainted Gov Blago that no one else would accept. So narcissistic that he named his kids Roland and Rolanda and his built a mausoleum to himself already.

- Harry Reid – U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Blocked Burris from taking his legally appointed seat in the Senate. 99 white senators – mostly Democrat – blocking the door from the only African American to be in their club.

-Nancy Pelosi. Speaker of the House of Representatives. She threw out all of the rules for the new Congress that allow the minority to present bills. Hey Republicans – sit down and shut up!

Hillary Clinton. Nominee for Secretary of State who has a monumental conflict of interest. The Clinton Library Foundation, of which she is an officer and a joint-checking account holder with Bill, has raised $500 million – including at least $50 million from foreign governments. How is she going to represent the U.S. in pressuring governments like Saudi Arabia when her name is on the endorsing line of a $10 million check from them?

-Bill Richardson. Resigned pre-emptively from PEBO’s cabinet because of his own pay-for-play scandal.

-Al Franken, Senate candidate in Minnesota who is stealing the election there in plain daylight.

- Secretary of State of Minnesota. Former member of ACORN, elected under the Soros-funded Secretaries-of-State project designed to help them get SOS’s in place to help them steal elections.


The winner is Barack Obama, for nominating Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA. This makes Obama the unserious President. We are at war since 9/11 with an entire Jihadist culture bent on killing us. Intelligence is as important as troops in this war. Yet, Obama chooses to nominate a political hack from the Clinton administration with zero intelligence experience to head the agency. It signals that he does not believe that we are at war. We will be vunerable again.

Hey, Democrats. What are you thinking in supporting these knuckleheads?

Surprise! Obama Clears Himself

Do you need any further evidence that journalism is dead in 2008 - totally in the tank for Obama and not doing their jobs - than the coverage today of the Obama Transition Team's meager 5 page report on Obama's dealings with Rod Blagojevich?

Have we fallen into a strange parallel universe? On what planet do politicians get to investigate and clear themselves?

When Obama has his own lawyer Greg Craig - famously known as a Clinton scandal-defense lawyer - to "investigate" their own team and report, the correct response should be derisive laughter. Instead we get fawning compliance from the press. "Gee, I guess we don't have to go to Crook County and check it out ourselves. He must obviously be clean."

Note to the news media: "Obama investigation releases their findings" is not correct. Obama's team released their VERSION. There's a difference.

It's Not Too Late - Electors - to Elect McCain!

Those of you not from Illinois are not prepared for the fallout of today's bombshell news of the FBI arrest of the Govenor of Illinois - Rod Blagojevich.

But I am from Illinois, and I know how deep this is going to go. Today is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of people are going down, including - I predict (and you heard it here first) the highest profile product of Crook County Illinois - Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

First, let me just say "it's about damn time" that our boy-criminal Governor was arrested. He's been corrupt and flagrant about it since day one in office. Good riddance. He should resign tomorrow.

Second, I call on U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose immediately, certainly before the inauguration, whether his years long investigation into Tony Rezko - corrupt political financier who is now in jail - and Blago revealed any evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by their crony Barack Hussein Obama. Certainly evidence has been alleged. Is it true? If so, we deserve to know before Obama takes office.

Lastly, you'll note that I did not call him President-Elect Obama. No matter what his podium sign says. That's because he has not been elected yet. He does not get elected until December 15th when the Electoral College members meet to officially cast their votes.

Connect the dots, people!

dot - Tony Rezko was a corrupt fundraiser in Chicago, who raised signficant money for prominent Illinois campaigns. In other words, paid to put them in his pocket.

dot - Tony Rezko raised a lot of money for Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich

dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has spent several years building his case on Rezko and his payments

dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald indicted and convicted Tony Rezko, who is now behind bars - probably signing like a canary

dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has now pulled the trigger on an arrest of Blago, based on evidence and wiretaps.

dot - Blago, whose phone has been wiretapped, has talked with Obama a lot in the last year

Connected dots - an indictment of Obama is not out of the realm of possibility (to put it nicely) and in fact is probable.

I call on the members of the Electoral College to not put this country through a constitutional crisis by electing a man who may be arrested and indicted in the next year to serve alongside his cronies in the Chicago political machine! Show courage and do not vote for Obama.

McCain - Palin 2008 lives again!

You heard it here first.

Scaling Back

As I've said, I've seen this movie before. And I don't want to sit through it again, so I'm tuning out as best I can.

The eight years of the Clinton Administration were tough on me, mentally. (As, apparently, the eight years of the Bush Administration were on lefties). I got myself twisted in knots learning all about their misdeeds and trying to convince other people that they were doing bad things. Which they were.

It's not healthy for me.

So, I'm going to tune out of politics as best as I can for the next four or eight years.

I'm going to try to put my head down and just take care of my family and focus on other hobbies that are good for my mental health. Photography, for example.

Whatever happens in the next 8 years, don't even tell me. I'm not listening.

At least, I'm going to try. We'll see how long that I last.

Back in the Fight

I read today that President-Elect is bent on closing Gitmo when he takes office. Hmmmm. Is that wise?

Let me digress a moment.

Have you ever watched an old favorite movie and caught something that you had missed before?

I had that experience this week. "Saving Private Ryan" - one of my favorites. If you can watch that movie and not get choked up when Tom Hanks - the hero Capt. Miller - is dying on the bridge at the end and he pulls Pvt. Ryan down and whispers "Earn this". Wow.

Here's what I caught that I missed.

There's a scene midway through the movie when Hanks and his squad has to decide what to do with a prisoner. The captain had stopped his squad's mission to find Ryan to engage an artillery battery at a radar site.

"Not smart, captain, considering our objective".

"Our objective is to win the war", says Hanks.

Of course, one of Hank's men gets killed and the squad wants revenge on their one captive. His mousy squad member gets in his face and challenges him. You can't let them kill him, he argues - he surrendered. Hanks sends the captive walking away.

"You just going to let him go, captain?"

"He'll be intercepted by one of our units and processed."

"Unless he finds his Wermacht unit first, and rejoins the fight."

Cut to later in the movie in the climatic battle scene to save the bridge. Captain Miller gets shot as he's trying to blow up the bridge to prevent the German advance, fatally.

What I missed was who shoots our hero. It is, of course, the German captive that he lets go.

Does he get away? No. The mousy soldier who argued for his release steps up and executes him.

Justice, but too late.

It's just fiction, I know.

But consider this: of the 250 high-level threats that were detained at Gitmo and then released under pressure by liberals, 50 or so have been subsequently killed in battle by our troops. How many did they kill of our guys after their release before we got them again.

Would you want to be the one sent to the family of a U.S. soldier KIA to explain that we had the bad guy in custody, but let them go so they could get back in the fight?

Think about it.

My Wildest Obama Prediction

It's fairly easy, if you've been watching his campaign for the last two years, to predict President Obama's action once he takes office.

Those pundits who are all offering up their insights that Obama will have to "govern from the center" are fooling themselves. He will pay back the Democrat interests groups right away with a flood of Executive Orders, as all presidents do. The point this time is that the Democrat interest groups have become very left wing.

It will be a left-wing extravaganza. Abortion-a-palooza. Labor unions free to run over workers who don't wish to join. Shutting down talk radio. More sub-prime "affordable housing". etc.

Predictable.

So, let me throw out my wildest prediction for President Obama's first year:

President Obama will be put in the position of having to consider pardoning George W. Bush.

Oh, yeah.

It's not a far-fetched notion at all. Here's my evidence:

- The Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. There are some Committee Chairmen/Chairwomen who are just itching to hold war crimes hearings on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and other nefarious warmongers. Itching. One of them will pull the trigger.

- The left-wing organizations and websites - I'm thinking MoveOn.org, Code Pink, etc. - have been calling for war crimes trials for two years. Believe me. I read their websites even if you don't.

- Vincent Bugliosi, professional crank and agitator (Motto: I'm brilliant and the rest of you morons are extemely incompetent!) not only wrote a book encouraging this ("The case against George W. Bush", I think), but has been working the country trying to find a U.S. Attorney who will prosecute the case once Bush leaves office. Some nutbag U.S. Attorney will file an indictment.

And when they do - what will President Obama do?

I think he will be forced to realize, as all president's do, that if we go down the road of criminalizing policy decisions, especially war time decisions, that he could be next. He will issue a pardon.

How popular will "the One" be when he pardons George W. Bush.

Remember, you heard it here first...

Can I Have My Vote Back?

Where's John McCain?

It's been more than a week since Govenor Sarah Palin, his chosen running mate, came under withering and remorseless fire - from his very own campaign staffers. Anonymous cowardly fire.

My expectation would have been that he would publicly defend her, and insist that his former staffers stop it instantly.

Isn't he the guy with self-proclaimed righteousness? The guy who would name names of wrongdoers and make them famous?

Here's your chance, Senator McCain. Identify your staffers who trashed Sarah Palin. Name them publicly. Since you can no longer make them resign, insist that the RNC see too it that they are never hired to work in a Republican campaign again.

Crickets........

Lying low-class S.O.B.

Can I go back to despising John McCain now?

Post-Election Thanks and Congratulations

First, the thank yous:

1. Thank you, President Bush. You made the hard choices and kept us safe for 7 years after the biggest terrorist attack on our country. You brought us out of the economic and psychological hit that our nation took on that day. You changed our stance from defense to offense in this war that was thrust on us, and took down many of our enemy and reduced the threat to our very existence.

Yes, President Bush made mistakes - as all President's do. We probably disagree on what those mistakes were. But the level to which he was demonized by the press and by the Democrats over the last two years is shameful, and will in the long term hurt our country.

2. Thank you, Governor Sarah Palin. You are an authentic and accomplished person. You showed us the huge gap between the professional Washington crowd (politicians and press corps) and the regular folks. You were a breath of fresh air, and you completely energized the Republican base.

Now, Congratulations:

Congratulations, President-elect Obama. You ran a long, disciplined, effective campaign and won. Disappointed as I am, I acknowledge the victory.

It was a historic victory, and our country can be proud of it. Our first African-American President. It's a victory that literally could not have happened anywhere else in the world, outside of Africa. It could not have happened in Europe, for example. Only in America.

I will not be a bitter Republican and oppose you from the outset. I will not say that you are illegitimate and that you are "not my President". No, I will not do to you what many Democrats did to President Bush for 8 years. I saw how damaging that has been to our country overall.

You will be the President of the United States. My President. Do the duty that you will swear to do (support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic). Serve well. I will wish you success.

Moving on.

Deconstructing the Losing McCain Campaign

It's clear to me: John McCain lost because of John McCain.

He had a chance to win, amazingly. Many pundits of pointed out the strong Democrat headwind this year. He should have been 20 points down. Yet Obama had so many weaknesses that McCain was competitive. He could have won, but didn't. Here's why:

1. "Me too"-ism.

I like Ann Coulter's theory that any time you give voters a choice between a Democrate-Lite and a Democrat, the Democrat wins. McCain is often the Democrat-Lite.

It's that Maverick b.s. Let me translate "maverick" for you - it means "I can't stand Republican policies either". As in:

- you hate tax cuts? Hey, me too!
- you want open borders and amnesty for illegals? Hey, me too!
- you hate the Bush administration? Hey, me too!

I had to gag this whole campaign listening to McCain. Constantly sticking his thumb in my eye. It should be a requirement for the nominee of a political party that you actually like the party. NO MORE MAVERICKS!

2. Senatorial "Niceness".

John McCain prizes bipartisanship above everything else. That means great hesitance in criticizing Democrats to the point of appeasing them.

Excuse me, Senator. Running for President is necessarily a partisan activity. Be a partisan.

That means, first of all, lifting up the virtues of your own party. McCain never did that, never made the case for Republican ideals. He only made the case for John McCain.

That means taking on your opponent, early in the race. McCain should have been taking on Obama's radical associations early on, when he secured the nomination back in March. Doing it so late in the race looked desperate.

McCain unilaterally disarmed. Disarmed is defeated.

3. The Economic Bailout exposed McCain as a liar.

McCain's self-proclaimed strength was opposing spending and making big spenders famous. "You will know their names". Yeah, right.

Nice theory, but he failed when his big test came. Let's recap what happened. When Wall St. melted down, and the Adminstration proclaimed the need for a bailout, McCain was faced with his big moment.

What he could have done was this:

1. Oppose the bailout as a socialist intervention in the markets. The public was massively opposed to the Paulson plan, with phone calls to Congress running 200:1 against. There were other ways to solve the crisis - conservative ways. Go to Washington and champion a conservative fix.

2. Oppose the pork. The Paulson plan grew from a 3 page memo to a 450-page pork laden bill that the President signed. Oppose the pork - and make the authors of the pork famous - as promised.

3. Demand accountability.

-Demand Paulson's resignation. If a cabinet officer comes to the President and says that his department has failed so badly that he needs $700,000,000,000 to fix it or the whole U.S. economy will fail - he should be fired.
- Same with the SEC chairman.
- Identify the Congressmen who pushed banks to issue bad sub-prime loans that caused the meltdown. Pledge to "get" the people who caused the mess (as O'Reilly urged him to do).

What did he do instead?

1. Support the bailout by tinkering around the edges and then urging Americans to support it.

2. Overlook the pork.

3. Blame everyone and no one. We all share blame in this - Yada Yada Yada.

His performance in on the bailout both made him look erratic and exposed the lie that he will oppose pork and make spenders famous.

McCain lost because he is the same McCain that I have loathed in public office for years. Period.